Judicial Ethics - The Legal Chamber

Accused Can’t “Buy” Bail: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Monetary Undertakings for Release

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Accused Can’t “Buy” Bail: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Monetary Undertakings for Release

This Supreme Court judgment prohibits courts from granting bail based on monetary undertakings or deposits by the accused. It directs that all bail applications must be decided strictly on their own merits, in accordance with law, and not on any extraneous promises of payment. The practice of imposing financial conditions for bail deprecated to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Gajanan Gore, was arrested in August 2023 for allegedly siphoning approximately ₹1.6 crore from his employer, an advertising and training institute. He was charged with various offences including cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. After the Trial Court denied him bail, the Bombay High Court granted him bail in April 2024. This bail was contingent on a ke...

Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against Judicial Officer: Protects Subordinate Judiciary

The Supreme Court expunged the strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer, emphasizing that higher courts should refrain from making adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., highlighting that criticism of judicial orders should focus on errors rather than personal conduct. The judgment also recommended incorporating provisions in High Court Rules to mandate disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications, ensuring transparency and informed judicial decisions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned observations were expunged. Facts Of The Case: The case involves ...

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...